Taxing

My wife already detailed out her issues with the Canadian government and taxes. I also detailed some of my initial issues/concerns with American taxes. After returning from Canada, I have had some high-priority projects to work on, including getting some final answers on our tax needs. Luckily, we planned ahead and M got the required documentation together and notarized just in case I needed it.

Today I have been reviewing the documentation for the 1040. The instructions are very seemingly contradictory. In some places they say I cannot file Married filing Jointly because she is a nonresident alien. In another place it says we can file that way, if we both show in writing that we agree to. In another place it says that I have to claim her "world income" and will be taxed on it regardless of whether she was taxed on it in another country. In yet another area the rules state that we get a huge exception for her as long as we can prove she is a nonresident alien (how do you prove someone is NOT a resident?!). These rules led me to not one, not two, but three different other sets of rules that I should read. What I found in those rules seemed equally contradictory to me.

I said screw it and decided to call the IRS 800 number and speak with someone. The first person with whom I spoke could only help me by determining if my wife qualified for an ITIN (which I already knew she did and have all the forms). However, Nancy then transferred me to the more specialized Advanced Individual Tax Law area and I got Tony to aid me with the "how should I file due to these extenuating circumstance" question. I explained in detail what we did last year, and then explained I was sure, based on the very confusing rules I was reading in the various documents, what status I should use to file (Married Joint, Married Separate, Single) and, if Married Joint or Married Separate, how my wife's status as a nonresident alien affected what I should enter and how.

He went through the points of the Married Joint and it seemed like a poor choice for our situation. While we could do it, it would require a lot more paperwork (three additional forms on top of the 1040) and this status would then make her have to state that she is a resident of the US for the next three years, regardless of her residency status. That didn't seem good with me moving to Canada. The rules for Married Separate seemed much more amenable to our situation.

I then further explained that she does not have an SSN or an ITIN yet, but that I assumed she needed an ITIN and we had all the paperwork together to process that. Tony said, "Hold on a minute. Does she need one?" He then went through and explained in detail that she may not, in fact, need anything at all. He said that it is very common for spouses to turn in tax forms with their spouses name on it and no SSN or ITIN for a variety of reasons. That one of the benefits of filing Married Separate is that, excluding the two fields where her name and SSN/ITIN would go, the rest of the form is entirely devoted to my information as though I am a single person. He said that if I turn in my 1040 with no SSN or ITIN for her, they will process it without that with no problem. I also verified that the IRS doesn't "look for" a corresponding tax return from a Married Separate form to match up the two married people (as in my case they would never find one). He did say that, if I did have the paperwork for the ITIN, it shouldn't hurt anything to include that and send the tax return to the appropriate secondary address to get her one. However, he couldn't verify doing so wouldn't negatively affect filing in the future-- especially since I'm moving to Canada.

The only important caveat is that I cannot e-file my return if I do not have a tax identification number for her. I have to paper-file. No real problem, really. Just means it might take a bit longer to get my money back.

So, after some initial panic, this seems like the route to go. File as Married filing Separately status, do not include her tax ID number, and then do my taxes like a single person and send it in. I think this weekend I will spend much time doing just that.

In the Valley of Elah

My wife and I managed to watch quite a few of the best picture, actor, etc. nominees this year, both before and after the Oscars. Overall, we felt that No Country... was superior to most of what we watched, even if the others were pretty good. Last night I watched my Unbox rental of Paul Haggis' In the Valley of Elah. While I wanted to see this film anyway, a post on this blog prompted me to step up my timetable for when I would watch it.

Wow.

Elah was a complex, realistic, engaging story about a father (Tommy Lee Jones) finding out his youngest son has gone AWOL from the Army after returning from a tour in Iraq. He determines to discover where his son has gone and soon learns of the son's death. He then rattles the cages of the local (Charlize Theron) and the military (Jason Patric) police to do more and to be more aggressive (and, frankly, better at their jobs) in finding out what happened to his son. Susan Sarandan has a small but powerful role as Jones' wife.

From beginning to end, this film was superior to most of the other films up for awards in the last Oscars. I simply do not understand why this film wasn't nominated in more categories than Best Actor for Jones. The script was sound and engaging, the cinematography was well-conceived and executed, the direction and editing were both tight and well-done. All of the performances, including a surprise from Wes Chatham as Cpl. Penning in a very naturalist performance, were spot-on and incredible.

My best guess is that, because the movie was labeled as an "Iraq-war movie" people shied away from seeing it. Yes, it has some themes from Iraq that play a part in the movie, and the war is discussed, but the movie is not primarily about the war. The war was used as a prop; Haggis could have chosen any military conflict for this prop. The war theme is used to state that there are people who go to war, who are trained in and experience circumstances that non-military people could never hope to fully understand, and who come back and cannot "turn off" those experiences or that training. The circumstance of war and conflict alter them and their perceptions fundamentally. I wonder if this film would have been better-received if Haggis had chosen a different conflict as the back story to this story.

In comparison, I found this story tighter and more complete/compelling than Michael Clayton. It is much more powerful and complex than Juno. It nearly rivals No Country for its thought-provoking story and direction. While I have not yet seen Atonement, from what I've read of that movie in reviews, it seems that Elah is more even and consistent in its direction and story telling (most reviewers have argued that Atonement loses focus when the story switches to the man going to war). I would argue that Sarandan's performance was close to the same quality of Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton (who won the Best Supporting Oscar). Theron also gave a strong, natural performance.

This movie will not be for everyone. There are some violent images and some of the back story scenes of what went on in Iraq to cause the change in personality of the characters may prove disturbing to some. However, as a thoughtful, relevant, and involving story concerning the ongoing affects of war on those who fight, it is well worth a watch.

Safe Trip, but Exciting

While my overall trip was primarily on time and without incident, there was some excitement coming into Chicago and then again close to Orange County. In both instances, we hit really strong cross and head on winds, which cause some pretty extreme turbulence.

We actually landed with the plane not in line with the runway in Chicago. Only after all of the wheels were down did the pilot straighten the plane out and slow us down.

The flight to Orange County was also fun because the plane had a huge number of children under 10 on board. Some were screaming, some were playing games, some were excited by their first time or just being on a plane in general.

I got home pretty fast too. I got right on a Super Shuttle van and was the first person dropped off, for once. However, that still meant that I wasn't home until about a quarter to 9 PST-- and I was still running on AST, so it really felt like 1 am to me!

Immediately upon entering the apartment I had to start the clean up from my cat being alone for all that time. I also found my relatively new Drinkwell fountain not running and both water dishes bone dry. I think I may have to rethink my current arrangements for watching my cat. The bathroom where her litter is wasn't too bad, though; I have changed to a clumping pine dust mix that seems to work very well. I still have more cleaning to do from her, but it stuff that can wait a little.

Caly herself started meowing and didn't stop until after I fell asleep. She was sticking to me like glue and still is today (I'm working from home).

I then tried to stay up until 10:30-11pm and was successful.

I am looking at my things to do list now and realizing that I have a ton of stuff to dig into immediately, most especially my taxes (special circumstances due to being married to a Canadian without a US SSN or ITN (at the moment)), my health care needs, and laundry.

Ratings and TV

The following is from IMDB.com today:

New episodes of CBS's sitcom lineup returned to the air Monday following months of reruns due to the writers' strike, and ABC aired the season debut of its reality hit Dancing With the Stars, and although all of those shows received decent-to-good ratings, they were well off their comparable figures from a year ago. CBS declined 17 percent against last year's numbers for the comparable night. ABC was off 21 percent. For NBC and Fox, the plunge was far deeper, with NBC down 28 percent from last year and Fox, 32 percent. Reporting on the numbers, MediaWeek columnist Marc Berman asked, "Did the recent writers' strike cause permanent damage?" Berman pointed out that while ABC's Dancing With the Starspremiere averaged a solid 13.4 rating and a 21 share, a year ago it opened with a 15.1/22.

I have been arguing this for a while now. Television is not the end-all, be-all medium anymore. And the television executives are not changing with the times. I see a few ways in which TV execs are not learning:

Fair but not outstanding ratings.
Execs would rather drop a show doing a fair amount (say, a 6.0 to 9.5) in the ratings and hope the replace does better than stick with a show that already has a solid foundation and may improve over time. However, the model over the last 5 years indicates this is no longer a safe bet. Matter of fact, the model shows just the opposite-- it is much more likely for 6.0-9.5 to be the average of "hit" shows. Gone seem to be the days when the top 20-25 shows all were doing better than 10.0 in the ratings. There is so much competition now that a show is going to start high and then level out to somewhere in the 6-9.5 range on a much more regular basis. Only the top 10, certain sports programs, and special presentations will regularly eclipse these numbers. As the internet and cable shows continue to eat into the networks quality and provide even more competition for viewers, this may go down even further.

How to compete?
Leave shows on longer. Let them find their audience and be content with smaller numbers. You are still receiving money from advertisers for that time. If you control costs on the shows without affecting the quality of the show, you can keep this going for a number of years. A recent example would be Studio 60. This show came out like gangbusters, then settled into a respectable but not overwhelming ratings number, and then started to pick up some cudos and awards toward the end of its run. The audience was starting to come around and, like many Sorkin shows, it likely would have picked up in the next season. However, the network wasn't willing to wait and replaced it... with something that made about the same splash and then sank to about the same rating lows. So they lost on two shows rather than giving one a chance to succeed.

Competing with other networks' best shows.
Execs think they can bully their way onto other networks' best days and steal some glory. Instead, they wind up diminishing the entire night's worth of ratings. The four main networks need to start working on ways to help each other maintain viewership rather than always undermining the other networks best shows or blocks of shows. This becomes especially true with the rise of cable networks quality and willingness to compete directly with the networks. Shows like Burn Notice, Damages, The Shield, The Closer, and others, are proving that the cable networks can pull in large audience for quality programming. This further thins the viewing public from the networks. Add in the large number of eyes that have shifted to internet-only programming, MMO games, and other forms of entertainment (to the tune of $3-4 Billion a year and more), and the networks simply do not have the rapt audience they used to have.

Another trick from the last year was scheduling shows to start early or overrun a competing network's show. They figured they would keep audience by holding them past the hour and the audience would switch. Instead, they got massive email, phone calls, and letters with customer complaints about that. They learned quickly that the audience wasn't going to stand for that kind of shenanigans and we slowly saw that tact done away with.

How to compete?
Program around another network's best shows. Let them have their piece of the pie and put your best shows on another day or another time. Give the audience a chance to watch both shows and keep both you and your rival afloat. And stop the gimmicks with time shifting your programs. Moving your shows around erodes your audience, as many will not move to the new day or time (they likely already have something for that day or time scheduled, whether it is online, on another network or cable channel, or unrelated). History bears this out-- shows that move their times and days lose audience and ratings. Every time.

They think we want unscripted shows and clones of everything else on TV.
The most recent errors the networks have been making are assuming the viewing audience will watch just anything they throw out there. When Who Wants to be a Millionaire first came out, it was a ratings juggernaut. However, they effectively killed it and drove it to cable and off-times by putting too much of it on the air. CSI and Law & Order drove down their own ratings by splintering into multiple versions of their own shows. Add to that the number of other, similar clones that rolled out on other networks, and the audience further erodes. Super-heroes were doing well at the box offices, so the WB put a couple of super-hero type shows on TV. They did well and built a loyal audience. Next thing you know, there are a bunch of super-hero type shows on TV and each one starts with a big audience and then erodes down to a core set of viewers. I'd be willing to bet it is the same core audience keeping most of them afloat. Supposedly unscripted shows are not doing the gang-buster ratings the networks have come to rely on because, well, the audience is bored. We all know they are not, in fact, unscripted. So we start going back to the original, most interesting and all the others slowly drop to oblivion.

The difference between the originator and the clones? Quality. The originator is usually the best, highest-quality, purest, and most original of the group. The clones are all variations on that same theme. So, once the audience figures that out after 2-4 shows, the audience goes away. Sometimes back to the originator, sometimes on to the next "big thing" hyped, and sometimes away for good.

Also, if you're going to rehash an old show or movie concept, make sure you make something new and different without ruining the feeling and opinions of those who saw and still watch the original. For example, Bionic Woman was too different from the original concept, tried to be too many things at once, and couldn't hold its audience (although it was averaging at the mid-6s... right in what I argue is the target range the networks should be striving for and trying to keep a hold of).

How to compete?
Go for the new and then stick with it and let it find its legs. If your rival network or cable channel comes out with something new and different, don't clone it. Look for your own new and unique shows instead. Don't franchise yourself to death. And simply don't put on the same show two or more times a week. NBC's response to the success of Lost on ABC was to bring out Heroes-- a similar feeling, but wholly different and high-quality show of its own. Both have been successful.

Take a long, hard look at the shows you are passing on. A lot of what is now on cable and stealing your ratings was offered to you first and you passed on it. Maybe it is time for new and different eyes in development?

The Waiting Game

While it is great that the Immigration paperwork is in the hands of the Canadian government, it is also frustrating just... waiting.

I have a letter dated February 13, 2008, saying that the Buffalo, NY, Canadian Consulate has my paperwork and that mine is in a "priority queue." When I go to its online site, I see that 30% of the applications have a response in 3 months, 50% in 5 months, 70% within 7 months, and 80% in 9 months (all of those months numbers are the same or better than nearly all out-of-Canada response times).

However, knowing that I am very likely to have a response within 5 months from February still means that I am waiting for a response until July sometime, most likely. And that seems like forever to wait, especially with what is going on in my immediate SoCal area (with work, the housing crisis, etc.) and the nation in general (recession, etc.).

From my mother I get a need to do for myself and not give up a project or task unless absolutely necessary. While this is absolutely necessary, it is nerve-wracking to have it out of my hands and not be able to do anything to assist the application's speed review and approval.

So I will try my best not to go to the web site every single day and look up the application's state. I will try to wait patiently to hear from the Canadian government about my status. *sigh

The Week That Was

On the Thursday prior to leaving for Saint John, I commented to both my wife and my boss that I wasn't feeling particularly well and that I was afraid that flying was going to cause me increased difficulties because of that. On top of that, as you have likely already read in a previous post, the flight took much longer and was a poor day, which didn't help my beleaguered immune system. Lastly, Saint John is suffering from some pretty bad cold/flu problems at the moment (they have been ranked "High" or "Very High" since I got here).

Sure enough, I got sick. Very sick. Happily, it was a slightly uncommon illness for me in that my face really showed it, I was coughing a ton (and powerfully), and even sneezing and blowing my nose. My throat was raw both from the coughing and from the illness, some intestinal/stomach issues, and I had a severe headache. I say "luckily" because, oftentimes, I get very sick but it doesn't show up on my face and people around me don't completely believe I'm sick. Apparently, the key to making people believe you really are sick is to have a red nose from blowing too much or water, dry, drained, eyes. I simply don't usually have those symptoms.

I actually logged off early and or took a full sick day a couple of times last week, I felt that bad. This weekend it came to a head and I actually coughed so hard that I vomited! Ugh! I have been sucking on cough drops, Hall's Defense, and taking Advil Cold and Sinus all week and praying for health.

What has been wonderful is being with my wife. What a difference it makes to have someone who can take over the cooking needs, can keep the cupboards stocked, and rub you when you are having a hot or cold flash. Unlike when I am at my apartment and I have to eat whatever crap happens to be left over in my fridge or cupboards, which I'm sure doesn't help me get any better. My only hope is that she doesn't catch what I've had. *fingers crossed

I'm back at work today. Sneezing and blowing a bit, still having powerful and painful coughing, and still feeling liquid sloshing around in my chest. But I am definitely on the mend. Finally!

Now, today would normally be Enbrel day, but that lowers the hell out of my immune system and I'm not supposed to take it when I feel sick or feel like I am getting sick. So I think I had better hold off a day or two more before trying it. *sigh

Journey Here

For the most part, the trip here this time was okay and mostly uneventful. However, I have learned that having 3 or more hours of waiting to do at any one stop is like Hell. I will have to avoid flights with overly long layovers next time.

The last flight came after what was scheduled as a 4 hour layover. However, my flight from Chicago to Toronto was early and then a weather front in SJ caused my flight to be delayed from a takeoff of 9:55pm to 10:40pm. With the time change going to AST, I was already supposed to land at 12:45am, so this delay was pushing me back to nearly a 2 am arrival time. And then, when  they finally announced what was going on (I had gone up and spoken with someone at the desk, which is why I knew about the delay and what was going on and found out the chances were "poor" they could get us to SJ), they said that they were thinking about taking off, seeing if the weather cleared as they traveled to SJ, and then landing at Quebec City if it was not clearing enough to land for refueling and "further consideration." Er, excuse me? You want to take off, hope that you have a place you can land, and then turn around and land in a much smaller city, with fewer hotels and other options for our continued travel? If the runway in SJ didn't clear, they even said they might then fly us back to Toronto from Quebec City later that night. Ugh!

I determined that if the chances of the runway didn't improve, then I would opt out of this marry-go-round and find the hotel that M had researched for me and just try again in the morning (Toronto had an 8 am flight that would get me to SJ by just shy of 11 am AST). However, the next announcement, over an hour and a half later and very nearly the time we should have been boarding the plane was that we were waiting a bit longer, and that they chances of getting through to SJ were "fair." I told M I was going to risk it and get on; I'd speak with her whenever/wherever I landed-- hopefully in SJ at 2 am.

This flight was uneventful and we did manage to land in SJ early in the morning. M had driven the borrowed Aztek, which has either all-wheel or four-wheel drive over the icy roads to come get me, nearly spinning out of control once along the way. We took a different path back, took it slowly, and she got me home safely.

Sunday we spent a lazy day at home adjusting to having me here. The snow outside is pretty thick-- I'd say close to a foot on the unshoveled and unplowed areas. We shoveled the driveway and back porch a bit so M could go to work on Monday.

The time shift struck me last night/this morning-- I had trouble falling asleep until after 2 am and am very tired this morning. It always takes me a little while to adjust either way. But we are hitting our routine and happy to be together.

A Little Scare

I went to my AIH doctor while M was here and we spoke with him about my illness and my recent issues with being sick. It was nice having my wife along, so she could meet the doctor in whom I have so much built up trust and respect. For his part, he described in 5 minutes everything we've been doing about my AIH for the last 12 years and I think she got a lot of value out of that.

However, I wasn't able to get my blood work done prior to that visit. I got it done the following Friday (two days later) and then had to wait until yesterday to hear the results.

My ALT and AST, both prime liver-function indicators, were astronomically high. ALT has a typical range of 0-45 and AST is 0-40. My results were 182 and 145. I managed to get in contact with my doctor today and he is dumbfounded by these results. Especially since I have been doing so well for so long with my meds and my blood test results... I have occasionally come out high on one or both of my liver-function results, but just small blips (the occasion mid- to high-40s, even an occasional 50). These current numbers are similar to what I had when I was first diagnosed and started treatment (when I was first diagnosed, I was in the high 200s and low 300s, but they dropped quickly with treatment).

Complicating the issue is the fact I'm leaving for SJ on Saturday. We just don't have time to do much between now and then.

He provided three options:

1. Go on my steroids (prednisone) for three weeks until I return and can get another blood test done. This has a few disadvantages; I react well to prednisone, but higher doses can change my personality and has some other side effects. Usually I get happier with steroids, but sometimes I get meaner, morose, or lethargic. Also, if something else were to happen, the prednisone might mask the issue while I'm on it.

2. Up my Imuran take again. We have been slowly lowering my Imuran because it is hurting me to be on two powerful immune suppressants (Enbrel and Imuran) at the same time. However, Imuran takes a while to "kick in" so upping them won't see a change in the results for a few weeks most likely. Secondly, I'm flying shortly and going to a much colder and wetter climate, with viruses and flus to which I am not accustomed. Upping my Imuran means I am lowering my immune system at exactly the wrong time. I may get violently ill on my trip and be laid up far away from my doctors (while I'm sure M's mom can get me great care, they don't know my history like my current doctors do).

3. Do nothing different, continue to take Imuran and present levels, and repeat the blood tests as soon as I get back. Aggressively treat it then if my results come back still out of range while my doctor has complete access to me.

We discussed the options for a bit and then I decided on option 3. Liver disease is, thankfully, a slowly debilitating disease. My numbers are really not so bad as compared with people who are in end-stage liver disease (their ALT and AST numbers are in 1000s typically-- I'm far from that). It took around 5 months for my numbers to go from in-range to where they are now, so there is plenty of time to treat aggressively and get everything back on track. I am flying to SJ shortly. Not knowing how I'm going to react to upping my meds (or anything possibly more aggressive that we might come up with), would possibly cause me to have to miss my trip or be susceptible to everything I come in contact with along the way and while I'm there. Lastly, we are both incredulous that these results are not somehow a fluke. Yes, they might be high and we need to treat it, but going from high 30s/low 40s to 4 times that amount in a few months? Possible, but possibly influenced by other sources. Possibly one of the cold medications I was on trying to beat the cold I had helped lower my liver function. Maybe it is an adverse reaction to one of my other medications, a food, or something else external.

One of the great things about my doctor is that he shows me his concern and he is quick to act... when it is necessary. He doesn't panic over one bad test, even if it is very bad, as this one was. He wants to see trends and consistency before he does anything that is going to affect me unduly. Too often doctors react to one bad test and over medicate or over diagnose without taking the entire history into account-- and the patient winds up worse than before. My doctor knows my history and knows that this is very unusual for me. Better to see if my meds will calm this down and get it back under control and repeat the blood tests in a couple of weeks than to panic now and possibly do something even more destructive in trying to solve the current issue.

I am comfortable and confident in this decision. I'll start panicking in 3 weeks if/when my blood tests don't change or get worse, and will ask my doctor to be aggressive in getting things back under control. This way I can still go on my trip to SJ, I don't have to worry more than usual about the illness and muck that I will be exposed to at the airport and on the airplanes, and I don't have to remember any new treatments. We'll wait and see what happens, and then treat as required.

Oscars, 2008

My general, quick-hit thoughts:

- Where was Brad Renfro in the In Memoriam list? He died within the Feb 1, 2007 to Jan 31, 2008 time frame (Jan 15, 2008). Did I just not see him on the list?

- Katherine Heigl looked awesome in her red dress. Stunning, really. The woman in green from Enchanted was also stunning.

- Why don't they ask the audience to wait to clap until the end of any/all of the presentations? It just sounds bad when the audience claps for some nominees or some of the In Memoriam people and not others. Wait until the end.

- John Stewart did a very nice job. Kept things going, had a few killer jokes, and had one of the better moments giving the woman from Once the chance to give her speech (which was one of the best speeches of the night, by the way).

- Tilda Swinton deserved the win for Supporting Actress. She was incredible. And she had one of the better speeches for the evening, referencing George Clooney's turn in Batman.

- I think that any one movie should be limited to one best song nomination. After hearing it, I'm happy that the song from Once won. I have the movie and look forward even more to watching it now.

- I'm happy No Country did so well.

- No one else stood a chance against Day-Lewis this year. No one.

- I'm happy that Bourne won some awards. One of the best all-time action series.

- I still don't completely get why certain people are chosen to present and why people other than the host presents some awards. It would speed things up to have Stewart just present some of them.

- Cream and very light pink dresses don't generally look good on TV on Caucasian women. Cameron Diaz was a prime example (although she didn't look so great herself, either).

- Tom Hanks looks like Tom Hanks again, yay!

- Overall, I thought this was a good Oscars.

CoH, Not Just for Entertainment!

A father posted the following on one of the boards for my favorite game, City of Heroes.

As I sit here to wait for the servers to come back up, it struck me that I could write a little post about Sister Flame.

Sister Flame is the online handle of my middle daughter, currently six years old. She's been playing City of Heroes since she was 4 and 1/2. It was only over the last year we began to team together with my two accounts and have a lot of fun. I thought I let you know what Sister Flame has learned from CoX.

(1) Flame Learned To Read

At the tender age of five, I let Flame play on my second account on my laptop beside me. For a while, I had to tell her what the train destiantions were, what the NPCs were saying and what the villains name were.

It was only mere months before Flame didn't need my help anymore. We were playing one summer evening and I noticed that she wasn't asking me to read things. I looked over at her screen and watched her for a bit. I was intrigued she knew where to go.

"Need any help reading, honey?" I asked.

"Nope. I can read nope. That says Atlas Park and that says Steel Canyon. Those are Clockworks, but I like calling them Clickey Clacks." she replied quite happilly.

Her teacher was quite surprised at the headstart she had on her reading skills. When I informed the teacher that Flame's headstart was the result of playing a superhero online game, I got the weirdest look. Oh well.

Now, at six, I can hear Flame reading slowly over the mission text and the NPC dialogue. She cannot type yet, but if we get on a team together, I usually do the talking for both of us.

(2) Attitude Matters; Not Age.

From time to time, I get a little impatient with my daughters. I do recall the one evening I was unwell, but Flame wanted to play CoH and wanted to get on a big team.

"I'm too sick to play, so you'll have to do it by yourself." I told her, thinking that she'd never figure it out or get booted quickly if she did get invited to a team.

I laid down on the bed and closed my eyes to rest. Twenty minutes later, I stretched and asked Flame how she was doing.

"Good. I am in a big team." she told me.

"Oh yeah?" I asked.

"Yep. People keep joinging, but I think they're playing soccer." she says.

"Why is that?"

"I keep seeing the word 'kick'."

I rolled off the bed and scrolled back through the chat. Apart from several comments about Flame's excellent control and attack with her Fire Blaster, I see several conversations/arguments with some idiots who joined the team and did something really stupid. Most of them wound up being kicked by the leader. I also notice that every so often, Flame has written 'ty'.

"What's the 'ty' for?" I asked.

"Thank you. You type it sometimes. Everytime I see 'Flame', I type it. They like it."

I watched Flame play for another twenty minutes. No one in the group had a clue to her age and she played her role as any good team member should: waiting for 'Go' or 'Ready' before attacking, saving her Rain of Fire for large groups and giving inspirations to thoes that needed it.

Finally, I had to type a message for Flame.

"Thank you all for the team. This is Flame's dad. She has to get up for Grade 1 tomorrow and needs to go to bed. She says you were all great."

I still love typing that message and watching the responses. Most are 'lol' or 'what?!'. One time, a player typed 'Wow. I wonder if my poodle could play.'. All in good fun.

(3) Playing Coh Is Just Like Playing House a.k.a Imagination Is Power.

Flame has always had a decent imagination, but it has improved a lot since she has been playing Coh. She likes to spin stories about her toons and give them a backstory. This has translated well to her schoolwork when she has been asked to do creative writing assignments. She has also developed a healthy curiousity into some of the groups in CoH. Some of the things she has asked me are:

"Why do Skulls hang out in Perez Park?"

"How come the Clockworks don't attack cars or make nasty cars to attack people?"

"Why are Trolls green?"

"Where do the Outcasts get their power?"

Now, she makes up toons with funny names (to us anyways), but good backgrounds. Among some of her mains are Takes Care Of Pets (A MM with two mercenaries: Cat, Dog), Takes Care Of Bats (A PB with Bat Wings) and of course, Sister Flame (a Fire Blaster with her partner, Brother Frost [me]).

So, if you ever run across a Fire Blaster named Sister Flame on Freedom, chances are its my daughter havign fun, but learning many things at the same time. Feel free to team with her, but don't be a "poopyhead" (her words, not mind).

Ciao!

P.S. She is working on her typing skills, so if you see her say "Go", "Go", "Go" about twenty times, don't worry. It's only 1 of about 100 words she can spell.

I think it is wonderful that he has found something he can enjoy with his children. It is also great how much his children have grown and changed playing the game; learning the story of the game, becoming more creative, and learning the values of good team work. I have, on some rare occasions, found that I was playing with a very young player. Many of the times I was surprised. Sometimes I could tell the person was young. I usually try to be nice to everyone and helpfully suggest tactics and things to help the team be more effective, so don't really care what age the person playing is. I have had more than one father/mother thank me for my patience with their child.

This is yet more proof that it is the person, not the activity, that makes something a "waste of time" or something worthwhile and possibly educational. One more example I can use in my arguments against those who say that playing video games is bad, evil, or worthless.

Go get 'em, Sister Flame!

Broiler

So, frankly, for the longest time I thought the drawer under the stove was simply for pan storage. That was all my mother ever used it for-- I can't remember her doing anything with that drawer except place pots and pans.

I recently had cause to eat some dishes that were broiled. Each of them were quite tasty and surprisingly moist. So it caused me to wonder about this strange, alien cooking technique called "broiling." I spent some time today, in between doing actual work for my company, looking up broiling, and determining what might be the best course of action. It was during this time that I discovered that broiling, in addition to be something you can do in the main stove region of a conventional oven, can be accomplished in that little "storage drawer" at the bottom of a gas (and some electric) stove. You can imagine my surprise. I further learned that the drawer's front actually can rotate down to ease access for cooking using the broiler. And that funny pan with the slots that is always in that storage drawer? It has a purpose in broiling!! Aha!

Deciding to use it, I thawed some steaks over the day and they were ready when I was done with work. I used Mrs. Dash on both sides of each, seared them on the stove while the broiler warmed up, and then I followed the instructions I read online and put the thick steaks into the broiler for 12 minutes on the first side and 10 on the second side.

While not as good as grilled, I am very pleasantly surprised at how good they turned out. I was afraid that the steaks I was using were freezer-burned a little around the edges, but the broiling seems to have helped ease the damage done by that. The meat is still a little tough, but certainly not as tough as if I had fried them up or grilled them, so bonus. The internal meat is nicely pink and the outside is blackened but not overly burned. I'm sure I'll get better at that as I use this new-found technique.

Color me surprised.

I have expanded my cooking repertoire another notch and look forward to figuring better ways of using this feature of my stove.

Tivo Woes

I don't realize how much I rely on my Tivo until something isn't working correctly. Yesterday I watched a downloaded Amazon Unbox movie and today-- some of my network-related features are not available at all. One of my Unbox items is just gone. Some of my home network features are simply not there.

I did the usual tests, restarted the Tivo, double-checked all the network controls, and then called Tivo Support. Within minutes I was on the phone with Shawna. She pinged my Tivo, did not see anything wrong with my services from her end, and then had to put me on hold while she spoke with her manager. Turns out that they have experienced a server outage with certain servers that only run the network functions, like the Swivel Search, Amazon Unbox, and certain transfer and related services. Their techs are working on it and hope to have those network services up and running in 24 hours. It was great to discover these services are not available on their end and that the fault is not on mine. I was worried that something had gone wrong in the OS or with my network.

M had a similar issue recently; her Tivo, my old single-tuner one, started acting really strangely. It rebooted, lost connections, didn't react to things correctly, and was making a lot of noise. Being a tech person herself, she was able to make some analysis which led her to believe the hard drive was failing. We went through my friends at Weaknees.com and she got a new hard drive and fan for the unit, installed it, and everything was okay. But for those 4-5 days while she performed her analysis and then waited for the parts to arrive, she was a bit lost-- she also hadn't realize how much she had come to rely on the Tivo and all of its wonderful tools and features. She was beside herself until she fixed it and everything turned out okay.

The Tivo makes things so easy. It is far superior to any VHS recorders and most PC DVR functions. Some of the newer DVRs from cable companies and the like have just as good systems, however, most of those are ripping of Tivo's services (and a few lawsuits have been used by Tivo to correct this). When comparing a DVR, the companies always compare theirs to Tivo-- the best general DVR system available. This ease of use and powerful scheduling service is exactly what makes it so hard to do without when/if something goes wrong.

Now I just have to wait until the systems come back online from their end and I should have all my functionality back. Just have to be patient and not get a huge urge to download from Unbox or Swivel Search a favorite actor.

Movie Night Follow Up

The theater is older, with a screen set high up enough that you have tilt your head back and no stadium seating. But for $3.00 total cost to get in and watch Michael Clayton, well worth it. Our theater probably held about 200 people and it was pretty full. All but the first three rows were mostly full.

Michael Clayton was interesting-- I am not sure I think it qualifies as a Best Picture movie, although it is quite well acted, directed, and photographed. No Country for Old Men was far superior in comparison, for example. And Juno was this movie's equal in most aspects. However, I thought Tom Wilkerson and Tilda Swinton were incredible in their roles. I am scratching my head over George Clooney being nominated for an Academy Award. He was good, don't get me wrong, but one of the of the five best of the year? Hmm. I use some possibly faulty reasoning when I am thinking about who should be nominated for a Best Actor award: did the person do a good job in and of itself? Yes. Clooney provided a nuanced and subtle performance. Could anyone else be placed in the role and do as well or better? Yes. I saw nothing special or unique in Clooney's performance that someone else could not equal. Can I imagine anyone else in the role and liking the movie even more? Well, yes. I think someone older, like Clint Eastwood, could have really nailed this role. Does the person make those around him/her better? No. If anything, Wilkenson and Swinton made Clooney's acting better and stronger, not the other way around.

Another problem I had was the fact that it starts by showing you a bit of the future, then goes back four days and you see how those images come about. This is, in my opinion, one of the absolute worst things you can ever do in a movie. It never works, it doesn't work here, and takes a lot of the emotional and physical jeopardy out of the scenes until the movie syncs back up with itself. There are two assassins in the movie, but I never worried for the main star because I knew he survived anything they did until we reached the sync-point. However, if they had just told the story from day one, scene one and gone forward, I would not have been sure of anyone's survival and it would have given even more emotional impact to the scenes of Tilda Swinton crying, shaking, and sweating through her suit that come later (just to name one).

Secondly, while I appreciate them not telling us everything about everyone and letting the audience figure things out, the story itself could have been made slightly more clear. All those rooms full of lawyers tend to blur together and it is easy to lose track of the story and who is on which side (M complained of this; I felt I followed it okay, but think it could have been clearer).

Thirdly, throughout the movie we are told about how great Clooney's character is at "fixing" for this law firm. However, in both his personal life and in the law firm, he absolutely sucks at it for most of the film. I found that incongruity a bit unsettling and it didn't make a lot of sense to me.

Lastly, the payoff at the end is well worth it. Swinton and Clooney play off each other and bring a quality and satisfying end to what could have been a movie without much point. However, I'm not certain all audiences will want to climb the proverbial mountain to get to that payoff.

I would rate the movie a solid B+ or maybe an A- on my scale. A very good movie, but with some flaws. I would rate the theater a solid C-- flawed theater and one that I wouldn't want to go to often, but with great prices and good enough sound and picture to make me go back.

Movie Night

It has been a long time since I have had to wait in any sort of significant line at a movie theater. We have so many theaters around, and so many of them have multiple screens (I have two with over 20 screens within 7 miles of here, and two more with 10 or more within 5), that it usually isn't necessary to wait in a line. You want to see the latest blockbuster? Go anywhere and you can find it playing without a line. Simple.

Tonight M and I were planning an impromptu date night. After church we were going to head over to the nearby, recently discovered dollar movie theater and watch Michael Clayton. The theater is in an older section of Irvine, behind a car wash, and is an older theater that was fairly recently repurposed as a dollar movie theater. Well, to be honest, a "dollar fifty" movie theater (nearly all shows are $1.50).

She joked that it might just be the thing to do in Irvine on a Saturday night. We laughed... and then found out she was right. As we drove into the parking lot I commented that I was shocked at the number of cars in the lot. I hadn't ever seen the parking lot so filled. As we turned down an aisle and started heading toward the theater, we both commented on the number of people. As we got closer, we saw that there were two lines stretching along the sidewalk in front of the theater just for tickets! Since the movie we wanted to see started in less than 15 minutes, and there was no parking in sight, and there were two lines that long, we decided to put our plans on hold. But we drove right by the ticket booth and the lines were long and getting longer by the moment. It really is the thing to do in Irvine on a Saturday! Good call, honey!

So, we headed home, watched episodes of How I Met Your Mother, ate some popcorn, and had a quiet night at home. We are planning to try to go see Michael Clayton at the noon showing on Sunday instead.

I think that other theaters could really learn something. This theater is likely turning people away from shows due to the price and the size of the theaters; while you can go see the latest blockbusters it is rare that the shows are sold out. This theater is making up for the price in the volume of customers, while the deluxe, super-modern, multiplexes are having to raise prices continually to make up for the falling attendance. You wonder how much better the stadium 10 across the street from me would do if they would just lower the tickets by $2 per show; I would bet that they would make up in attendance volume the money they would lose on the initial ticket price. If you have a 100 seat theater and can only half-fill it at $10 a ticket, by lowering the price to $8 you only have to have 12 additional people show up per show to make up the price difference-- I would hazard that is fair bet to make. And when word gets around that your theater is $2 cheaper than the others around for first-run movies-- you'll have more than 12 people per show showing up!

Heath Ledger

While I am still sad that Heath Ledger is dead, I am happy that it has been ruled an accidental overdose by the coroner. I hated the thought that another bright young star may have killed himself for reasons unknown. It also points out the ease with which a person can get and use prescribed drugs exactly as ordered but with unexpected and deadly consequences.

By all accounts, Ledger was suffering from insomnia and anxiety or depression. Some of it brought on by the roles he took, some by his personality, and some by the life he was leading at the time. His breakup from Michelle Williams, I'm sure, played some role. You can't have a long-term relationship and a child and break up without some effect on your life. Published reports said that he was having a hard time "letting go" of the Joker persona, who is, in this version, much darker, scarier, and amoral than in other portrayals on film and TV. And, frankly, a certain type of personality tends toward acting and those personality types also tend toward instability and somewhat reckless or egotistical behavior. I do not know if Ledger was one of these, but if he was, this could have played a part as well. I have read some reports that Ledger may have suffered migraines or nagging headaches as well, although I'm having trouble finding any supporting information for this.

It seems that Ledger managed to get a lethal cocktail of drugs from reputable doctors and pharmacies. He likely assumed, as many people do, that the doctors would know of any drug interactions between the medications and thought they were safe. Or, maybe, like many people, Ledger didn't think about drug interactions and failed to tell doctor X that he was on medication Y for problem Z. That sort of knowledge may have changed the drug of choice for the new doctor. He may also have assumed that the pharmacy information or talking to a pharmacist would be enough; pharmacists do their best to ensure the safety and health of the medications they prescribe, but there is only so much they can do. It also appears from reports that at least a couple of the medications were prescribed in England during his stay there filming The Dark Knight or his newest film with Terry Gilliam. This might mean Ledger didn't even think to mention the other medications he had to this new doctor-- he had a problem and this doctor tried to solve it.

Yes, I realize I am leaving out the fact that he may have purposely tried to get these medications for the sole purpose of getting high. From what I'm reading, this was not Heath Ledger's intent. By all accounts, he was past that phase of his life, was trying to be a good dad, and had a lot to live for and many plans for the future.

Reports indicate that the amounts of each medication were within the prescribed limits for each. However, the combination of the drugs caused an unsafe reaction in Ledger's body which ultimately caused him to pass out (rather than just sleep), his breathing slowly became more depressed until he ceased breathing, and his heart stopped. I see a scenario where Ledger may have had a headache, or some other pain, and he takes an Oxycontin for the pain. He then tries to go to bed and can't sleep, so takes a couple of his sleep medications. He still can't sleep and realizes he is having undue anxiety, so pops a couple of those pills to allay that problem. All perfectly reasonable and justifiable, but deadly nonetheless. Or some similar combination of very reasonable events causes an unsafe mixture of these medications to be taken.

While I mourn the loss of a talented actor, I hope his death will serve to show people that prescription drugs are not to be taken lightly and that full disclosure is needed when obtaining a new prescription. Taking too many medications, or taking an unsafe combination, can result in a trip to the emergency room or worse. This is especially true for children who get into mom and dad's medicine cabinet and "sample" a little of everything.

Be safe and be smart about prescription drugs.

Paper or Plastic?

Many stores are moving toward asking you to purchase your own cloth bags and use them whenever you go to the store for groceries (or, frankly, other stores). While doing this, over the last few years, many stores have been producing smaller, thinner, lighter plastic bags.

The main reasons that I have gleaned for this change is that the plastic bags are environmentally unfriendly. They don't biodegrade  worth a damn and are filling up our trash and landfills with needless plastic. In addition, all plastics are made from petroleum, so the costs of producing the bags has increased since the oil barrel costs have skyrocketed.

For many years the only choice a person had when going to the grocery store was to get paper bags. Paper bags are tough, hold more than the new sizes of the plastic, and are generally easier to place in your car due to the regular rectangle shaped bottom. In addition to all of these advantages, paper biodegrades fairly easily in landfills, as many insects and some plants like to "feast" on paper and, specifically, the cellulose that makes up a major component of paper. Now, granted, most paper sacks do not have handles, so are a little more awkward to carry. Lastly, while originally paper manufacturers used clear-cutting methods to make their products, that has pretty much gone away. Nearly all paper manufacturers now replant, manage their tree lots in environmental safe ways, and use a ton of recycled material in all their products.

In addition to its use as a grocery carrier, a paper sack can also be used as impromptu drawing paper for children, package wrapping, and cooling trays for cookies. I'm sure many other uses are out there, too, but those are some of what I have used them for.

At my local Albertsons, it turns out, they have the paper bags in a small cupboard in the bagging area of the checkout stand and you just have to ask for them.

Sometimes the old ways are as good, or even better than, the new ones. If you are concerned about the environment and don't want to buy your own bags, try asking for paper at our local grocery store. They may just have the bags handy and you may find them useful to keep after they have served their original purpose.

No Country

This contains spoilers. Matter of fact, I ONLY discuss the very end of the movie No Country for Old Men, so if you haven't seen it, stop reading now.

----------

I didn't like the very end of No Country and have said so. Specifically, I didn't understand the writer/director choice of having the villain get hit by a car and the subsequent interaction with the two boys.

Four different people to whom I said "I didn't like the ending. I didn't understand the choice they made ..." have all given me some variation of their explanation for it and why I should like it (luckily, a fifth person who knows I didn't care for the ending, Lisa, did not say this-- I guess she understands that not everyone has the same perception of a movie).

Let me set the record straight (or, at least, straighter).

First, throughout the entire movie we are shown that the villain is "Lawful Evil" -- i.e., while he couldn't give a damn about people in general and has no problem killing rather indiscriminately, he has a code by which he lives and he doesn't sway from it. So, for example, he gives the gas station owner an out and stands by it. He gives the cowboy an option of handing back the money and his wife would live or running and his wife would die. We, the audience, understand that he actually means it. The cowboy, unfortunately, doesn't know this (not that I think it would make a difference to the cowboy). We see him kill his "boss" when the boss appears to betray him.

Secondly, we are also shown repeatedly that the villain is machine-like in that he just keeps going no matter how injured he is. He sutures up his own shot leg. He shoots the new bounty hunter who appears to be horning in on his bounty. Even when he gains a grudging respect for the cowboy, he still will not offer a deal that doesn't involve the cowboy's death. He simply will not be swayed and he will not be stopped.

So, I perfectly understand him going to the wife's house at the end and, presumably, killing her in a fairly nasty manner. What I don't agree with is the villain getting into an accident as he leaves her house. We already know that the guy is unstoppable, so having him so injured and walking away does nothing new or different. We already know that he has honor, so his interaction with the two boys doesn't teach us anything new. The entire movie was founded on the idea of the "real-life" struggle and how dangerous everyday life can be-- so we don't need to see him get in the accident in the first place.

Now, if he had been killed in the accident and that was how he came to "justice," I could get behind it. How many villains in real life have only come to justice by a fluke or odd coincidence? That's just life-- these people tend to be smart and self-sufficient and only get caught by a fluke or when their ego overcomes their common sense.

If we have him leaving the house and driving away (sans accident) and then cut to the disillusioned and having a hard time letting go cop, and then fade to black, I would be in agreement-- the cop is uneasy in his retirement and wondering about the "one(s) that got away" and whether he could still be doing it and making a difference to others. Okay, I'm behind this. I know some current and former cops-- this is real life again and would make for a great ending.

I'm a pretty smart guy and I watch a lot of movies. I understand the choices and nuances that most movie-makers make. I just don't understand the Coen brothers' choice in this particular instance and for this particular two minute (or so) scene. I think the rest of the movie is masterfully done. I simply disagree with this scene. You don't have to explain it to me or act like I'm an idiot for not liking or agreeing with it. Every reason for the scene anyone has explained to me I have provided an equally compelling reason as to why it wasn't needed; as I said up earlier, we know all of the information that is presented in this scene so it doesn't add anything new to the movie and is superfluous (to me).

The Sneaky Little Details

I decided to start my taxes this weekend. I like to get them done early, e-file, and get the money back (if any) deposited directly into my accounts. Fast, easy, efficient.

Ran into a stumbling block this year-- I got married and to someone who isn't American and does not have a Social Security Number (SSN). Turns out that either a) we need to get her one, if possible, or b) we need to get her an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). From the looks of things, the ITIN will be the easier thing to get and I can turn in my taxes with the form that asks the IRS to procure her the number.

Now I require my wife to bend over backward to get me the necessary supporting documentation, get it back to me with the signed form, so I can do my taxes. And, of course, it is not like she's the least bit busy at work and at home these days. *sarcasm

I'm just glad I do my taxes early, otherwise we would be finding this information out at the last minute, I would have to file for an extension, and we would have to jump through even more hoops.

Our marriage and relationship is complicated enough as we struggle to be together and overcome those issues. We don't need other things like this cropping up. At least, from what she's said, her Canadian taxes are much simpler in this regard. For me, though, it is makes a huge monetary difference filing as Married as opposed to Single (and a big difference between Joint and Separate). So it is worth the hassle. Hopefully this time next year I will be in Canada, we will have all of this information, and filing will be simple. We'll see.

Ad Frustration

I am getting really upset with advertising these days. There are so many that so obviously obfuscate the truth or outright lie. I wonder how the federal government is allowing them to subvert or ignore the truth in advertising rules.

The many "male enhancement" ads started this annoyance. If you go to the Better Business Bureau and look up any of these companies, they each have a list of complaints against them a mile long. These led to a general annoyance with all of the ads for pharmacy products on TV with their 10 seconds of advertising and 20 seconds of side effects and warnings.

Next came the Mac versus PC ads. While entertaining and usually funny, I get consistently annoyed with the half-truths and sometimes outright lies that Mac uses against PC. I think Apple makes a good, quality product and that they could make similar gains in sales from touting those instead of lying about what PCs "can't" do. The same week that they release the ad touting how many people are going back to XP is the same week I read an article from a reputable computer magazine showing the big gains that Vista is making. Who is right? The ads about how Macs inherently can edit video, find all of your pics/videos, and record TV seem to ignore that Windows has had those features as part of the OS since XP and that the Media Center in Vista is getting pretty high praise from many critics in the industry. And the fact that (certain) Macs run Windows faster than standard PCs-- well, yeah-- ever since Apple had to concede that they should produce Macs using Intel processors, they can A) run Windows and B) can design and produce machines that run Windows fast. And the one touting Leopard's features over Vista? Well, many pundits I've read comment that a lot of those same features appear to be knockoffs of what Vista did-- but Apple doesn't mention that in their ad. I wonder why Microsoft doesn't counter these advertisement. I guess Microsoft is content with their overall 80% market share. But that still doesn't help me with my annoyance!

My current annoying favorites are the ones for paycheck loans/debt consolidation and one for a new weight-loss product soon to be released. One of the loan ads has the announcer say that loans are "quick and affordable" yet, right there on the screen in the explanatory 'fine print' it says that loans start with a 99.99% interest rate for the period of the loan (and most of these places loan money for weekly or semi-monthly periods). How is owing double what you were loaned considered "quick and affordable" -- quick to poverty and affordable if you don't mind selling an internal organ! The weight-loss pill actually says "And we couldn't say it on TV if it wasn't true!" Just the shear fact they say that makes me wonder. The product is the miracle weight loss pill from Europe that is "proven" to be effective-- yet the fine print says that the item has not been submitted to the FDA for evaluation. How is it proven effective if it has no proof to point to?

I also hate the anti-eHarmony ads that I'm seeing. They show people complaining about being "rejected" by eHarmony-- except, as a former member of that dating service, I know for an absolute fact that you cannot be rejected. Your answers to their questions may mean you don't get immediate results from their database of potential mates, but that is far different from the way these ads use the term "rejected."

So far the political ads have been relatively tame. However, the Indian Gaming ads have really started to annoy me. I'm glad that someone smart finally put a direct counter ad up to the anti-Indian gaming ads that were being paid for by ... non-Indian gaming casinos and racetrack betting businesses. Gee, only those who will be directly and negatively affected by the Indians increasing their gaming business. I'm shocked!

Super Tuesday is coming up shortly (Feb 5). I'm really not looking forward to the political ads that will start steamrolling once that is over and the main candidates are chosen for the next Presidential race. After this, I expect to really start getting annoyed.

*sigh

Just the Facts

This was an article in today's IMDB.com news roundup:

MPAA Admits College Pirate Study Was Wrong
The Motion Picture Association of America has acknowledged that a study that it commissioned in 2005 -- that concluded that widespread illegal downloading of movies on college campuses was responsible for billions of dollars in losses -- was wrong. The study had claimed that students with access to high-speed Internet connections in college dorms were to blame for 44 percent of the industry's domestic losses from online pirating. However, on Tuesday, the MPAA admitted that it got the figure wrong because of "human error" and that it was more like 15 percent. But Mark Luker, vice president of Educause, told the Associated Press Tuesday that the study did not take into account the fact that 80 percent of college students live off campus. He figured that campus networks may be responsible for only 3 percent of illegal downloads. The industry's earlier figure, he maintained, was intended to show that if college campuses got tough on the issue of illegal downloads, "it would make a tremendous difference in the business of the motion picture industry." He said that the new figures show that campus action would "have only a small impact." For its part, the MPAA said Tuesday, "We take this error very seriously and have taken strong and immediate action to both investigate the root cause of this problem as well as substantiate the accuracy of the latest report."

Now, I don't know about you, but revising from 44% (when this was a huge hot-bed topic that all the media were talking about) down as low as 3% (now that is is primarily a back-story and no one is caring), strikes me as a bit of erroneous reporting. Matter of fact, I would go so far as to say it is irresponsible of the MPAA to have released those (original) figures in the first place.

I have sent letters to Jack Valenti describing why I thought he and the MPAA were not only wrong, but salaciously so. Each time I received a nice letter back that proved he had no understanding of how the Internet worked, that his numbers had no solid backing, and that the MPAA just didn't get how much easier just about any other method of copying a movie is compared to using the Internet. He couldn't seem to understand that, even with all of the advances the Internet's structure has undergone to allow for DSL, Cable, and fiber optic connection, the Internet as a whole would screech to a halt faster than the next denial of service attack if the numbers they present are true. The millions of people downloading millions of gigabytes of these movies would bring the Internet to its knees and no one be running faster than the old 9600 baud modems. I will miss his responses, and should write to welcome the new head of the MPAA, Dan Glickman.

The Internet is not where the majority of people get illegal movies. It is much faster, cheaper, and easier to get a Netflix or Blockbuster subscription and, for $14.95 a month, get as many movies as you possibly can, copy them, and return them. Once you have the digital copy, if you have the ability, money, and setup, you can make an unlimited number of other DVDs of exactly the same quality. Those who do get the latest movies before they are even released in theaters are doing it through inside sources-- which no amount of legislature against average Internet users is ever going to solve! The quality of all other sources is so bad that most people are forced to buy a legal copy when it comes out anyway.

Lastly, I've never seen the MPAA release the stats on the percentage of those who do download movies, or get them illegally from other sources, go out and purchase a legal copy of the movie once it is available. In my personal experience, with the few people I suspect may have procured something nefariously, most of them have purchased the legal copy of those they liked once it became available. So, in each of those cases, the law may have been broken but the MPAA did not lose any money.

Unexpected Racism

One of the things I like about City of Heroes is that, in general, I find a better quality of player on the servers. I don't find a lot of gankers, or "Leet" snobs, or loot whores (this last mostly because there is little loot in the game). Every now and then over my nearly four years of playing I have run into someone who surprised me in a positive or negative way.

A few days ago, while playing my Peacebringer, Ace Atomic, I accepted an invitation to join a team. One of the two other members already on the team welcomed me and then asked me, "Why a PB (peacebringer) instead of a WS (warshade)?"

"Because I like to be a good guy," I responded.

"Have you read the history on WS? They are like bad guys who repent and try to do good."

"Exactly. I don't like that. I like being a good guy through and through," I said.

And then this person with whom I was having a perfectly ordinary, generally pleasant conversion, said the following (absolute direct quote-- I wrote this down word for word), "LOL. It's like the black ethnicity wanting to live in a nice house. Know what I mean? They didn't do what makes the sterio type [sic]."

Normally I am a fairly quick-witted guy who always has a comeback. I process most information fairly quickly. However, this comment flabbergasted me. I sat in front of my PC monitor in amazement.

A few things finally started flitting through my mind: How does he know I'm not a "Black Ethnicity"? Does he have any idea how that sounds? Where does he get off saying something like that? What the hell?

I said nothing and he dropped the topic and did not return to it. I helped them with that one mission, thanked them for the opportunity for the team, quit the team, and then used the Ignore command on that particular person so I wouldn't hear from him again.

I have at least one or two friends of each of the other races, and many friends of some races. These people are my friends for many reasons and due to many qualities, their skin color not being a driving factor to any of my decisions. My parents raised me to be open-minded and to judge people on their character and qualities, not their race, religion, or creed. And, like most human beings, I tend to think of others as having similar sentiments, thoughts, feelings. Having this sort of subtle racism suddenly brought to my attention has made me rethink how I see the world and how prevalent racism is in it.

My opinions on how far America has come in race relations has taken a hit and I am continuing to reevaluate my response to this surprising, and disappointing, occurrence.

Finally

I have had to settle for scrambled and fried eggs lately because I have been failing miserably to make an omelet. Today, however, I managed to do everything right and created a nearly perfect half-moon of an omelet, filled with cheese, pepperoni, and broccoli.

I cannot be sure what I've been doing wrong lately, but today everything came together. I started the pan at high and then, once it was hot, turned it down to a medium/low setting. I sprayed a very light layer off Pam on it today, even though I was using a nonstick pan (on a few of the cooking shows I've caught recently the experts say you should do this), I remembered to move the liquid around a bit to ensure even cooking, and I waited until the egg was mostly cooked before adding the ingredients. Generally I do all of this each time, but the last few omelets have turned into scrambled eggs instead, as the flip hasn't functioned or the egg has not properly covered the pan and congealed during cooking.

Anyway, color me happy as I sit here and enjoy my omelet!

'Roids

Everyone who knows me knows that I do not approve of any athlete found to have used steroids. I say strike their records (or asterisk them, at least) and throw them out of the Hall of Fame.

That being said, I have an idea to throw out there.

What if, say, an athlete was sitting there, trying to fight against the effects of age and years of overuse to their bodies, and says to his personal trainer, "Isn't there something we can do?"

And Trainer says, "Well, X vitamins and Y pain relievers are said to work miracles." But what the trainer is thinking is, "If he doesn't keep producing, he won't need me any more and will retire. I want to keep this gravy train going, and the only thing that will really help is steroids. I'll show him the info on B12 injections, lidocaine, and all these other flim-flam "cures" but I know that HGH and certain steroids can't be detected, so I'll actually inject him with those. He won't even know what he's taking, but it will keep this gravy train going for a while longer. Gotta get me that boat!"

Trainer then gets prescriptions, either legally in the name of the player at doctors with questionable morals or illegally, and tells the player, "I got your stuff right here. Rub this stuff on your sore joints, it is filled with B12 and pain reliever-- all legal, don't worry." Or tells player, "Here are those B12 injections you ordered! Aren't I just the best trainer ever? By the way, the prescriptions are in your name for legal reasons. You understand."

Players then honestly say that they never knowingly took any form of steroid or HGH or anything else banned or illegal to the sport. They think they are playing by the rules.

This necessitates the player turning a blind eye to the changes his body undergoes while on this regimen. He may suspect what is going on, but figure he has plausible deniability, forgetting that the prescriptions are in his name and that the trainer will provide his name at the drop of a hat if called to testify on anything to save his own reputation. And, let's face it, human beings are good at justifying what is going on in their lives; the steroid-induced changes may simply be a blind spot that their egos refuse to let them see.

This story also allows for those cases where Player A says he saw Player B inject something. As long as Player B thinks it is something legal and Player A doesn't know, or learns somehow that it is not legal, both stories told by both players are true-- one doesn't knowingly take anything banned and the other knows that the first is using banned substances.

I'm not trying to give these guys an excuse. And many of the athletes are definitely guilty. It just occurs to me that the trainers may have an entire seedy underworld in place to keep their own jobs going and give themselves a big reputation or make more money. And it seems plausible to me that they would try to keep that going without even informing the players of what they are doing or taking.

Undefeated IS Exceptional!

I am getting really tired of pundits saying we have to hold off on anointing the 2007 Patriots as one of best teams ever. In the history of the NFL, only 4 teams have completed the regular season with a perfect record, the Bears twice ('34 and '42), the Dolphins ('72), and now the Patriots ('07). So, in the entire history of the NFL, this has happened only 4 times! I think that right there makes a case for this Patriots team of being one of the best ever. If they manage to win the Super Bowl, then they will do what only 1 other NFL team has done, the Dolphins (the Bears teams both lost in the Championship game). And in all of professional football, only 1 other team has had a perfect season, the Browns in  '48 went 15-0, winning the championship of the AAFL (ironically, the domination by the Browns (52-4-3 in four seasons) is partly what caused the demise of the AAFL and subsequent merger with the NFL). However, while the NFL acknowledges the feat, it does not recognize the record as part of its official history since the Browns did it prior to the merger.

So, regardless of what happens in this post season, the Patriots have done what only a select few teams have ever done. I think, of the many years of the NFL and all the great teams that have come along throughout the years, this makes a very specific statement of excellence. If the Patriots can finish it off and win the Super Bowl, it will simply be an exclamation point on what is already a record breaking season and team effort.

Aside: And to all of those who say this season is somehow tainted by the cheating against the Jets, let's remember a couple of facts:

1. It happened for less than one half of one game and wasn't even used in that game. Also, this was the first half of the first game of the season.
   
2. The team was doing something that is legal to do by NFL rules, the man was just stationed in an inappropriate location from which to do it.
3. Goodell said that, had further evidence beyond that one game been found, he would have penalized the team more harshly. Since he didn't, I can only assume no further evidence of illicit behavior was found on the many hours of tapes the team turned over to Goodell's investigators.
4. This act did not influence the outcome of any of the 16 games the team played, and they still managed to win all 16.

As a community, Americans need to stop and take a long, hard look at what we consider excellence. We need to stop focusing on the championship game in whatever sport or activity and start looking at the body of work, the entire season, and allowing as how someone can be dominant and the "best" without getting a championship (or equivalent). The amount of good breaks and good luck that you need to win the championship doesn't account for the hard work, preparation, and actual skill it takes to compile a winning record during the season.

I've Been Saying this for YEARS!

From an IMDB.com news roundup:

The victory of Hillary Clinton in Tuesday's New Hampshire primary amounted to a big loss for polling companies (and, by logical extension, TV ratings companies, as well). There was general agreement expressed in the media that if pollsters who had predicted that Barack Obama would win by double digits (USA Today/Gallup had him leading Clinton by 13 percentage points) could be proven so wrong despite massive surveys of the New Hampshire population, then the news media's insistence on reporting the election as if it were a horse race ought to be reassessed. As it became clear Tuesday night that the polls had been out-and-out wrong, veteran NBC-TV newsman Tom Brokaw, brought in as a special analyst of Tuesday's election, turned to colleague Chris Matthews and remarked, "You know what I think we're going to have to do? Wait for the voters to make their judgment." Matthews responded, "Well, what do we do then in the days before the ballot? We must stay home, I guess." No, said Brokaw, there were other matters to report about the election. "I think that the people out there are going to begin to make judgments about us if we don't begin to temper that temptation to constantly try to get ahead of what the voters are deciding."

I've told anyone who would listen that, in my opinion, it should be illegal to report on estimates. Any estimates can taint the next state(s) results, or cause people who haven't voted yet to stay home ( i.e., if they hear on the news that so and so has already won, then why go vote?).

I also think it should be illegal to report until a district is closed and is reporting the actual count. California is the most populous state, so has the most electoral college votes (I won't rant here about why the EC should be done away with), but we are at the tail end of voting districts due to being on the west coast. Many people can't vote until after work, but by then the President is often already "decided" by the media! And then they are shocked that the California (and WA, OR, AK, HI) voters don't turn out. Duh.

Of course, I've only been saying this since the '88 elections. I've written to a couple of news anchors about this issue and the replies I got back were, basically, "we have to report the news" and totally discounting my argument that they are fabricating news by reporting these poll results. Hopefully this issue will get more national coverage now that the pollsters were so badly off. Let's hope for some change.

FYI - Lou Dobbs, one of my favorite pundits on TV, had something to say about this, too. Article

Round Two

Okay, I didn't do so hot in the first round of the NFL playoffs; I only got two of four games correctly picked for wins and losses, my scores were pretty far off, but I did well on my summary of what I thought would be keys to the games and the spread.

Jaguars at Patriots

I would not want to play the Jags if I was any team. This team is good at every position on both sides of the ball. They can pound it at you by running or throw decently through the air. They don't have many superstars, but have good quality and good depth at nearly every position out there. However, they are playing the Pats. As long as the Pats have Brady at QB and Belichick on the sideline game-planning, I don't bet against them. Also, they are at home and they have proven that weather is not a factor to their high-scoring offense. I am worried a bit about the Jags running on them (Pats were not good all season against the run) and keeping that powerful offense off the field. Also, the Jags are more physical on offense and the Pats defense is getting older. However, the extra week off should help the Pats D to get healthy and rested for this grueling match up. I do worry a little that the Pats O may be a little out of sync to start the game.

Patriots over Jaguars, 31-27

Chargers at Colts

The Chargers can win this game with two things: Tomlinson and Turner pounding it down the Colts Defense's throat for about 150-175 total yards and two TDs and the defense getting at least 3 turnovers. You still have to worry about Rivers and Norv Turner zoning out, but I think this first playoff win will get them focused and working hard.

The Colts, though, have one of the best offenses in football and a defense that was surprisingly good all season. The Colts can score with anyone, so they just need to not make mistakes on offense to stay in the game or blow it open early. Their D is opportunistic and sometimes gives up a big play or two. And, of course, they have Peyton Manning.

I will be rooting for the Chargers to win (closest thing to a home-town team I've got, and I really like LT), but I just don't think they have enough to grab this win away from home in a very hostile dome.

Colts over Chargers, 38-31

Giants at Cowboys

This game comes down to which teams show up. If the Giants team that nearly beat the Pats and the one that did beat the Bucs shows up, this will be a game. If the Cowboys team that was second in scoring and offense to the Pats shows up, this could be a blow out. What I fear is that the Dallas team that scored 6 total points in two of the final three games and the Giants team that couldn't beat sub-.500 teams both show, this will be a dog of a game.

I have a feeling that the Giants have a recipe for success now. I also don't think the Cowboys will come out flat or poorly. That being said, I think this game primarily comes down to the the lines and the corners. Whichever line can dominate the other will control the clock. And both sides have DBs that are vulnerable to the long pass and play-action.

While the Giants are much improved, and their defense is stout, I think this swings the favor to the Cowboys.

Cowboys over Giants, 28-24

Seahawks at Packers

The Packers, at home, in a playoff game, in January. I don't care how young their team is; history says you don't pick against the Pack in January at home. They are 14-2 at home in Green Bay in postseason games (and only 6-11 at away games). And I don't even want to get into Favre's record when the temperature is below 40 degrees, which it should be for this game.

Packers over Seahawks, 24-21

Stardust

I just can't for the life of me figure out why this movie did so poorly at the box office. I got Stardust from Netflix yesterday and sat down to watch it hoping for something good but believing it would be something bad after a few reviews and the poor box office results it got.

This is a great fantasy/fairy tale! Well acted throughout. Michelle Pfeiffer is great as the main witch, Robert DeNiro is hilarious as the "rough and tough" pirate captain (and his men give him great support), Charlie Cox plays the main hero, Tristan, with just the right amount of bravado and naivety, Claire Danes (always a favorite) gives a surprisingly warm and confident performance as Yvaine. The supporting cast is superb.

The story is a good one, involving a dreamer who wishes to marry the pretty but stuck up girl in his home town going to a fantasy realm to fetch her a fallen star. However, it turns out the star is a person. He then gets sort of roped into an adventure involving the star as people are out to get both her and the necklace she wears. Along the way, the star and the hero fall for each other.

Note: While I own the book, I cannot comment on how closely the movie follows it, as I haven't read it yet. It is somewhat buried in my stack of things to read at the moment.

The effects are well done, although mostly CGI, and the music is a nice accompaniment to the movie (whereas some fantasy films overdo the music).

Lastly, and what I liked the most about it, is that the story didn't play down to children. It is perfectly accessible and entertaining to both kids and adults. This movie succeeded where some recent fairy tales (Brothers Grimm, for example) simply missed the mark.

Why didn't this do better at the box office? At least the rest of the world seemed to have picked up on this little gem; the domestic was only $38 million but the foreign was just shy of $100 million.

If you like fairy tales or fantasy stories, I highly recommend it.

Results

Redskins 14, Seahawks 35 (wrong)

Man, I pegged this one all wrong. Seahawks played with a lot of heart and the "12th man" really came through for them. The Redskins looked tired after so many away games. I really thought when they came back to take the lead, that they would hold on and win it. But the Seahawks were able to grab the momentum right back and played to win.

Jaguars 31, Steelers 29 (right)

Much closer on this one; it was a tight game, the Jaguars showed their balance and efficiency in the red zone. The injuries hurt the Steelers mostly in that it made them rely on Rothlisburger too much. Ben hasn't really ever proven he can be the reason that the Steelers win; he's a great game-manager, but needs a good running game to take the pressure off and the defense to play well.

Giants 24, Bucs 14 (wrong)

The Giants came to play. And they had a good game plan to keep Manning successful. It is always tough to judge which Giants team will show for any given game. Garcia made some uncharacteristic mistakes and the Bucs defense wasn't its usual self-- especially against the pass.

Titans 6, Chargers 17 (right)

I thought this game would be much higher scoring. Young proved my point, being streaky and lacking accuracy. Turner and Rivers also proved my points, but not coaching well and not playing well for the first half. However, SD came out strong in the second half and got rolling. Some smart plays and some bad defensive play on the Titans allowed SD to take a commanding lead and hold on for the win.

Mmm

I like eggs. I like eggs a lot.

Yesterday morning I fixed two sunny-side up eggs, some toast, and then made some sunshine sandwiches out of the twain and enjoyed the immensely. This morning I scrambled some eggs, with Mrs. Dash and season salt, cheese, and some pepperoni and put it into a soft flour tortilla with some La Victoria taco sauce. Oh man!

I think the main thing I like about eggs is that they are so easy to change up. You can make scrambled eggs, which are good, but then you add some meat and veggies to it, cheese, some chorizo mix, or put it into a tortilla, and you've completely changed the meal. You fry them and they are good, but then you fry them and put them on toast or a muffin with cheese, hot sauce, and/or some meat, and it is something different again. And then you can go with an omelet and all of the variations there. And the best part about all of these combinations is that damn near all of them are done and ready to eat in under ten minutes. Many in under 5 minutes!

Er... What?

I was just checking on a new movie release to add to my Netflix list when I noticed this in my suggestions box:




Now, Lost in Translation is a drama about two people stuck in a hotel in Japan and growing intimate with each other (in a non-sexual way). It is about relationships and people. What the hell does that have to do with this movie? I generally don't like sports stories, but I especially don't like x-games, winter sports, or sports injuries.

I think Netflix may want to look at their recommendation algorithm.

Going on Record

I speak to a lot of friends about the NFL and game results. However, it is easy to fall into the "I said that" with no proof syndrome. So, this year, I'm going on record by writing down what I think will happen in each of the playoff games. Let's see how radically far off I am!!

Redskins at Seahawks

The Redskins are hot right now. They are playing well on both sides of the ball. The Seahawks did well in a weak division, but have pretty much given up on their running game. There should be bad rain and high winds this weekend, which leads toward a stronger running game being required. While the Seahawks play in a very noisy stadium, I don't think that is enough.

Redskins over Seahawks, 24-17

Jaguars at Steelers

The Jags are incredibly well-balance. They are efficient and quite good in the red zone. The Steelers are suffering through some key injuries and ineffective play. While they are at home, the Jags proved they could play there. I have also not seen good in-game/half-time adjustments by the Steelers in any of the games I watched.

Jags over Steelers, 27-24

Giants at Buccaneers

The Giants are up and down-- they sometimes play better than most teams in the NFC and other days they can't seem to walk and chew gum at the same time. Eli Manning is inconsistent at the most important position on the field. However, they have a good running attack and a pressure defense which can keep them in the game. They also have injuries at key positions which will affect their offensive rhythm. The Bucs are streaky with a stout defense. Garcia is superior to Manning right now, but does get "happy feet" on occasion against good defenses.

Bucs over Giants, 23-20

Titans at Chargers

The Titans are a sneaky-good team. They quietly rolled to a 10-6 record in a tough division. Their QB play is a bit streaky, as Young continues to improve and learn. He makes more plays still with his legs than with his arm, as his accuracy is not really at top-tier levels. The Chargers seemed to find their winning recipe at the end of the season, after a poor start. However, two people worry me: Norv Turner and Philip Rivers. After Rivers ended last season, I thought he was a franchise QB and there was little repercussion to getting rid of Brees. However, this season, he has played like a rookie at times and simply made bad decisions other times. Turner has never impressed me with his coaching-- he is a career loser who has been unsuccessful at the playoffs. However, the bad taste the loss to the Pats left in the Chargers mouth last year during the playoffs will be assuaged this year.

Chargers over Titans, 31-21

El Sicko

I got sick about halfway through the Holidays, after going out to DHS and 29. Advil Cold/Sinus, Sudaphed, and some Halls Defense kept me going for the most part, but I did crash and burn a couple of times.

And then I took my Enbrel in order to ease the pain in my hands and feet, which was getting bad from the extended period between injections of my new schedule. However, apparently I was not yet over the cold and the meds were only masking it. Taking the Enbrel immediately caused the cold to flare up and today I am not at work because of it.

So, here I sit, feeling like crap warmed over with full-on cold symptoms (at least they aren't flu symptoms this time), hating life. It really sucks to have to choose between relative bodily health and discomfort and pain in my joints.

As We Expected

M tried to get her ticket changed last night. We tried again today, before she checked in. Chicago, Toronto, and SJ are all suffering from winter weather, snowstorms, and plenty of delays. However, United and Air Canada simply wouldn't listen and could not go the extra mile to rebook her for sometime a little later.

This is funny to me, as they allowed her to fly into Chicago and then are leaving her possibly stranded there because this leg of the flight was clear. So, rather than dealing with the rebooking last night, or doing it this morning, they have now added her to the even longer list of people they must accommodate tonight and tomorrow.

M is hoping to be on an American flight from Chicago to Montreal, where she can hopefully hook up with her brother and stay with someone she knows. However, when she called me and had me check, the American flight was already an hour delayed due to weather and it didn't look good that she would be going to Montreal, either.

So, because the airlines are allowed to run their business in a slipshod, perfunctory, and unsatisfactory manner, she may be stuck in Chicago, left to buy her own hotel room, left to fly standby and deal with the hassle of rebooking everything tomorrow. She will miss out on at least one full day of work which, had they allowed her to rebook for Thursday, Friday, or the weekend from here, she could have made up working from my home while I went in to work.

The American government has bailed out the airlines a number of times. And most of those times it was because the airlines run their businesses in such shoddy and haphazard a manner that they couldn't remain solvent, couldn't pay their employees, and had to be bailed out.

I think we are rapidly running into a state where they will need to be bailed out again. Until we make these people treat the cargo they freight across the world as human beings, we will not get the service, respect, or treatment we deserve. Yes, so that may mean that airline tickets go up, possibly significantly, in price. I think that is a good thing; those who need to travel will still have to travel. But when we do, we will be treated like we should be and rerouted, accounted for, and helped to our destination rather than stuck, stranded, alone and friendless, in some god-forbidden place not of our choosing and forced to shell out loads more money that we may not have or cannot afford to spend on our own survival for something that is not our fault.

We need to start considering holding the airlines as responsible for the contracted job they do as we do any other contracted service.

M on Her Way

I have released M to the care of United and Air Canada, for her trip home. She will get stuck somewhere in either Chicago or Toronto, of that we are sure. However, the United and AC people were completely unable to change her flight(s) or destinations to avoid the... what?... third storm through that area since Xmas.

The good news is she has copies of everything she needs from me, we hope. Plus my signature on the most important pages. So she just needs to complete one or two simple areas, print out a mess of pictures as documentary proof, and ship off the paperwork for evaluation. Fingers crossed that this is it and we get a quick turnaround on it.

Now, to find something mindless and dull to do for awhile to distract me from the fact my honey is gone again.

*sigh